IN RE: ANDRINA DE ANDA (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Andrina De Anda filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to enforce a forum selection clause contained in an attorney-client agreement that she entered with real parties in interest, Jason C. Webster, P.C. d/b/a The Webster Law Firm and Jason C. Webster. This Court requested and received a response from the real parties in interest and further received a reply thereto from relator. The real ¹ parties in interest have now informed this Court that they have filed a notice of nonsuit in the case underlying this original proceeding, thereby rendering this current petition for writ of mandamus moot.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response, the reply, and the nonsuit, is of the opinion that this matter has been rendered moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings ․”); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

FOOTNOTES

1.   See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

PER CURIAM